How well does the Kodak Retina lens stand up to Leitz quality???

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Hi everyone,

I've been doing a little research into lens comparison tests between Leica vs. other brands. I found a rather interesting American camera the Kodak Ektra... on ebay, the guy claimed the following:

35mm Ektar for Ektra..sharper than Summaron!! Item # 1271594478

"This 35mm Ektar f3.3 # E0287 is in superb condition. Scarcely different from its condition after assembly in Rochester New York nearly fifty years ago!! Flawless glass, smooth focus and aperture control. The range finder cam zeros exactly at the infinity focus setting with a properly calibrated Kodak Ektra body. The lens' date of manufacture is 1946. Kodak's lens serial number encryption was "CAMEROCITY" equaling respectively....1234567890. EO = 46 = 1946. Considering the year of this lens' introduction (1941) few Ektra collectors realize its complexity and sophistication. It is because historical records on Kodak Ektra are so scarce. I have recently discovered this lens is a five element, three group modified Heliar type (see document photo). It is closely related to the design of the renowned 100mm Ektar of the Kodak Medalist. I have taken the time to test this lenses against the 6 element Leitz 35mm Summaron f/3.5 released in 1946. Amazingly, the Ektar (in two different examples EO287 and EY171) had substantially higher edge resolving power, both at full aperture and f/11 compared to the 35mm Summaron!! The color reproduction was more favorable as well. Center sharpness was slightly higher on the Ektar but very close with Summaron. Leitz had tried adding 2 more elements to improve the performance over its predecessor, the 4 element 35mm Elmar of 1930, but perhaps hadn't yet derived the same successful high index, low dispersion glass formulas Kodak had pioneered in 1939. (First used in the Aero-Ektars and 100mm f3.5 Ektar on Medalist used during WWII..see document scan). Interestingly Leitz did not formally advertise rare earth glass till the 5cm Summicron of 1953!!! This is all described in a copy of the RARE Kodak literature on Ektars I recently uncovered. This SIGNIFICANT new information on Kodak optical technology will certainly add to the already great stature of the Ektra camera and its optics. You get a copy with this auction!! It includes interesting information on the Ektra shutter and range finder as well. Aluminum lens carrying can has some scratches. International bidders welcome. Guaranteed as described. Bidder pays actual shipping. PayPal accepted."

and also

50mm f1.9 Ektar for Ektra ...7 elements Item # 1271597354

"This 50mm f1.9 Ektar for Kodak Ektra has remarkably clean glass, nearly perfect. The focus and aperture are smooth. The range finder cam comes to exactly the infinity setting on a properly calibrated Kodak Ektra body. The barrel shows some wear. All number scales are clearly visible. Few Ektra collectors realize this lens' complexity and sophistication. It is because historical records on the Kodak Ektra camera are so scarce. I have recently discovered this lens is a full 7 element, 4 group design. This equals the number of elements of the Leitz 5cm Summitar of 1939. (See document photos) But this lens is certainly NOT a Summitar copy. It is a unique Kodak 7 element design employing two special doublets prior to the aperture, another doublet and singlet behind. Each special doublet is comprised of a plano-convex and plano-concave element. By leaving one surface flat (plano) the Ektar elements could be ground to better thickness precision than the elements in the 5cm Summitar (doublets comprised of individual elements with doubly curved surfaces rather than one flat and one curved surface). This is important in a seven element lens, since these cumulative thickness errors may cause the assembled lens to deviate substantially from its theoretical calculated performance. In comparison, one also notes the tapering of the rear elements on the Summitar necessitated by the narrow Leica screw lens flange. By comparison the Ektra's monumental breech mount allowed much greater filling angle from the comparatively large rear element. Most significantly, it was Kodak , not Leitz, who had first pioneered high index, low dispersion glass in 1939 using tantalum, lanthanum, and tungsten. Aero Ektars and 100mm f3.5 Ektar on Medalist used it during WWII. Ektars for the Ektra employed this type of glass also! The exact formulas were a closely guarded secret. Leitz did not formally advertise rare earth lanthanum glass till the Summicron of 1953!!!... although rare prototypes labeled Summitar (*) had surfaced in 1951. A further amazing fact is Kodak began coating its Ektar lenses for the Ektra in the initial production in 1941. They had used a process they referred to as "Lumenization" since 1938!! From the outset Kodak had a sophisticated understanding of alternating each coating thickness to achieve alternating "blue" and "gold" coating layers through the lens. This lens displays the alternation. A similar technique is still in use today to retain neutral color balance for multicoated lenses. Interestingly, the 5cm Summitar was not coated till November 1945 and Leitz did not alternate "blue" and "gold" coatings like Kodak so the lens' net color transmission is slightly yellow (blue light reflected back by Leitz coating). Many of these interesting facts are described in a copy of the rare Kodak literature on Ektars I recently uncovered. This is really SIGNIFICANT new information on Kodak optical technology and will certainly ADD to the already great stature of the Ektra camera and its optics. It includes interesting information on the Ektra shutter and military style Ektra range finder as well. You get a copy with this auction!! You also get a copy of the Ektra camera instructions. Of course the ACTUAL pictures a lens takes is the most important thing. Of all the many 50mm lenses I have ever used, I prefer the bo-keh properties (quality of out of focus part of image) of the 50mm Ektar the best. At full aperture these lenses renders beautiful negatives and high speed Ektachrome slides, with very good central sharpness. By f4.5 the lens is razor sharp to the edges. The original aluminum lens carrying can (not shown)IS INCLUDED WITH THE AUCTION. Lens can is fairly nice condition with only a few scratches. Cover of can doesn't close. Guaranteed as described. International bidders welcome. Bidder pays actual shipping. PayPal accepted"

So guys, what do you think about the relative comparison between the Americans' ability vs. the German's ability to produce the highest quality optical lens during the 1940's? I am not technically proficient so I can't comment about lens tests this guy claims to have performed. Is it believable that Kodak could have done a much better optical job than Leica did?

sincerely, Alfie

-- Albert Wang (albert.wang@ibx.com), November 08, 2001

Answers

http://www.cameraquest.com/ektra.htm

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), November 08, 2001.

I have a Kodak Retina 3c (that is a small c), in practically mint- condition with a 2.0 Schneider lens. Overall, it is a good performer optically. I do not believe it quite compares with my Leica lenses, especially my 50 Summicron on sharpness. It does have its own particular characteristics but I much prefer the Leica lenses. The main problem I have with this camera is the small, cloudy viewfinder window. It probably just needs a good interior cleaning and I really can't do anything about the size of the window.If you want to talk more about this camera, let me know Alfie.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), November 08, 2001.

From what I understand if you want to rate lenses on resolving power, the Zeiss Contax lenses of the 30's were on top at the time. Zeiss had designers such as Drs Rudolf and Bertele and Smakula who developed AR hard coating. Zeiss of course had best access to the Schott glassworks.

Kodak's premium lenses were probably just behind Zeiss'. Kodak had Dr Kingslake in charge of optical design and had access to some of glass formualations developed by the NBS. They also developed a soft AR coating that could be used only on inner surfaces (the first Lumenizing). The Ektra was built in such small numbers that it pretty much turned out to be a footnote. Nonetheless, Kodak could make some good lenses and were, on the whole, the best of the US lens manufacturers at the time.

Dr Mandler at Leitz Canada developed a series of lenses in the 50's that have the more modern Leica characteristics. I recall a magazine interview from the 70's that discussed the concepts he implemented and how it affected lens performance. Until then, Leica lenses were considered softer & smoother without the 'biting' performance of the Zeiss glass.

Cheers,

Duane

-- Duane K (dkucheran@creo.com), November 08, 2001.


I have a Retina IIc with a 50mm f/2.8 Schneider-Kreuznach Retina- Xenon lens. Compared with Leica lenses, the Retina-Xenon lens seems to produce images with softer and smoother qulaities, but much higher saturated colours. Green looks greener, blue looks bluer, and people have rosier cheeks in pictures than they do in real life. This unusually rich colour rendition of the lens was what attracted me to buy the camera in the first place.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), November 08, 2001.

I used an 80mm f/2.8 Ektar (1949) on my Hasselbald 1000F in the 70's. It was a very good lens. But my 1978 Plannar & 1982 Plannar are much much better.

The commercial Ektars are outstanding and highly sought after. I wouldn't hesitate to use an Ektar lens. As to which is better, Ektar vs Leica, I guess the Ektars work better on a Retina and the Leica lenses work better on a Leica. The real question is, do YOU like making photographs with a Retina?

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@lsqgroup.com), November 08, 2001.



Mr. Wang: I've owned several cameras with Ektars. Main problem with them is that they are all obsolete and very tired. I would have liked to own a Kodak Chevron, but my repair guru said the shutters were prone to malf. My Medalist II took splendid shots, but it was in 620. My Kodak Signet 35 did marvelous work. I had it converted to X- sync. My bantam Special had the uncoated f2 & odd shutter spds and was in the 828 film size. A Retina IIA had f2 Ektar. These camera are too old & hard to use. An updated Signet 35 would be great!

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), November 08, 2001.

To follow Duane K.'s comments, Leitz wasn't always known for making the best lenses (a lot of people preferred the Leica bodies, however). Up until the '50s & even up until Zeiss Ikon stopped making the Contax RFs in the early '60s, Zeiss & Voigtlander (e.g., Nokton in LTM) glass were widely considered to be better (which explains why Cartier-Bresson used the Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar & Capa & Adams used the Contax system). The Nikon & Canon RFs were also worthy Leica competitors. For Stephen Gandy's take on the Leica v. Contax rivalry see http://cameraquest.c om/zconrf2.htm & http://cameraquest.com /lrfcrf.htm.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), November 08, 2001.

By the way, there's an article on the Kodak Ektra in LHSA's Viewfinder journal: http://www.lhsa.org/kodak.html.

-- Hoyin Lee (
leehoyin@hutchcity.com), November 09, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ